When the Trump administration decided that Europe had no place at the table in peace talks with Russia over Ukraine, the continent was left gasping. For decades, Europe had been the junior partner in transatlantic affairs, but never had Washington so bluntly slammed the door in its face. The initial reaction was a mix of disbelief, outrage and even existential crisis. Leaders, journalists and academics—left wing or right wing—were all united in their reactions, ranging from “unthinkable” to “unprecedented in 80 years”. The transatlantic unity they had taken so much for granted had just been put on life support.
Dazed and desperate, a few European leaders even made a hasty pilgrimage to the White House, hoping to talk President Trump into letting them back into the negotiations. They pleaded, massaged his ego and no doubt spoke of shared values and historic bonds. Trump, in his signature style, didn’t just refuse—he doubled down, showering praise on President Putin while the Europeans watched, horrified. And just when they thought things couldn’t get worse, Trump’s strategy became clear: push Ukraine into a ceasefire by any means necessary. Last Wednesday, the European Parliament responded, calling Washington’s decision “blackmail”. In an amusing twist, even some of the far-right MEPs—normally Trump’s biggest cheerleaders—signed on.
For decades, Europe had lived in the illusion that the US would always have its back. With NATO at the helm, they outsourced their security while their militaries withered away into underfunded relics. Now, the reality is hitting them hard: the transatlantic alliance isn’t what it used to be, and Europe might actually have to fend for itself.
Best Timing
So, the once-mighty White, Western bloc—the self-proclaimed guardians of the post-WWII world order—is in disarray. And who ought to be watching? Indeed BRICS. The bloc, already an economic heavyweight, has grown even stronger since expanding to 10 members last year. Some in the West love to paint it as an anti-Western alliance, but that’s wishful thinking. If anything, BRICS isn’t trying to burn the house down—it just wants a seat at the table. At its Kazan summit last October, it didn’t call for tearing down the Bretton Woods institutions. Instead, it pushed for reforming them, making the global financial system fairer
Apart from Russia and Iran, most BRICS+ members maintain solid ties with the West. But the common thread binding them? A history of colonial exploitation, economic dependency and political meddling—courtesy of Europe and the US. That shared past has given BRICS a purpose: challenging the entrenched dominance of Western powers and building what it calls a “more just and democratic world order”. It may sound lofty, but with the West fumbling and bickering, BRICS must be seeing an opening. It must. From pushing for de-dollarisation to rejecting Western sanctions, the bloc is well-positioned as a possible counterweight to a system that has long favoured a select few. Indeed, for decades, the West wrote and imposed the rules. Now, BRICS must remind them that they are not the only players in the game. And may we emphasise that with the transatlantic alliance unravelling, the timing couldn’t be better?
Strike When The Iron Is Hot
Are they ready for it though? That’s the billion-dollar question. Annoyingly, BRICS+ only seems to make headlines during their annual summits—or when Trump threatens to slap them with sanctions. For a bloc that dreams of reshaping the global order, they have a habit of fading into the background when it actually matters. Even in their supposed area of strength—economy—they sometimes struggle to present a united front.
And yet, just look at their collective might: BRICS+ represents a staggering 3.6 billion people, nearly 47% of the world’s population. Their economic weight is 36% of global GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP)—which is already surpassing the G7’s 30%. And while the West loves to scoff at BRICS+, analysts in Washington and Brussels are feeling uneasy. Why? Because by 2050, BRICS+ economies are projected to control 50% of global wealth production, while the G7 will shrink to 20%. The numbers only get more intimidating: BRICS+ will be responsible for 38.3% of global industrial production, 25% of global goods exports, and already commands nearly 40% of global infrastructure investments. They dominate the energy sector too, with 54% of global oil production, 53% of natural gas reserves, 40% of coal reserves, and nearly half of global food production. And lastly, these nations are also poised to control the world’s critical minerals and strategic metals, which are vital for the much-hyped energy transition and advanced technologies.
Despite this staggering economic strength, BRICS+ nations still play the role of petitioners in global financial institutions, politely knocking on doors controlled by the West. One of their supposed core objectives is to reduce dependence on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, institutions long accused of imposing neoliberal policies that prioritise Western economic interests over those of developing nations. Sounds noble, but when the time comes to make bold moves, BRICS+ has been known to dither.
Take Russia’s Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who, fresh off the Kazan summit, actually showed some backbone. He called for a BRICS alternative to the IMF and World Bank, complete with its own rating agency and commodities exchange. The response from other BRICS finance ministers and central bank chiefs was at best vague. Indeed, they have the New Development Bank (NDB), which offers loans without Washington-style political strings, and yes, they’re increasingly trading in local currencies to reduce reliance on the US dollar. Russia and China even built CIPS, their answer to SWIFT, to bypass Western financial chokeholds. But the moment Trump pushed back on de-dollarisation, BRICS nations scrambled to clarify—’oh no, we aren’t replacing the dollar, just… exploring options’.
Which brings us to the real question at hand. We all know how power works: whoever controls the economic levers gets to write the rules, set the policies and dictate the political agenda. The G7 isn’t running the show just because it’s rich—it is because it dominates the geopolitical chessboard too.
So, BRICS faces this challenge: can it turn its economic muscle into real political influence? Right now, as I said at the outset, the Western-led order is more fractured than ever, plagued by trans-Atlantic divisions and waning global dominance. This should be BRICS’ moment to step up. But if it keeps tiptoeing around the big fights and avoiding the messy realities of global power struggles, it risks becoming nothing more than a high-powered trade club—economically formidable but politically almost irrelevant.
Here are a few obvious examples of BRICS+ either staying silent or missing in action on major global flashpoints—moments where it could have asserted itself but instead chose to watch from the sidelines:
- When the Bashar al-Assad regime was toppled by the Islamist militant group Hayat al-Sham (HTS), led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, the US and European powers wasted no time in reshaping Syria’s future to their liking. They propped up al-Sharaa’s makeshift coalition and started carving out their own version of “stability”. BRICS nations were nowhere to be seen—either collectively or individually. This was a textbook opportunity to step in as a counterweight to Western interventionism, perhaps even play mediator. After all, Syria is part of the Global South, isn’t it?
- Just last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a stunningly undiplomatic move, announced on social media that South Africa’s ambassador had 72 hours to pack up and leave. No warning, no justification beyond vague accusations that the ambassador was anti-American
- Trump has often accused South Africa of “discriminating” against its White minority and offered the “persecuted” ones US citizenship. Observers suspect the real reason: South Africa had dared to take Israel to the ICC last year. Or whatever was the reason, no BRICS+ spoke a word in favour of one of the founding members of the bloc
- Then there’s Ukraine. While President Trump has positioned himself as the main pacemaker, Europe has been banging the war drums, peddling fear over Russia. Here was BRICS+’s moment to step in, offer mediation and bolster Trump’s peace stance—something he would likely have welcomed, given the relentless pressure from European leaders and media. Instead, BRICS+ is letting the opportunity slip, watching the geopolitical development from the sidelines.
These are not just isolated incidents, they are proof of a pattern—one where BRICS+ boasts economic strength but repeatedly fails to flex its geopolitical muscle when it actually matters.
A Geopolitical Test
Donald Trump’s hostility towards BRICS is no secret. His “America First” doctrine shuns multilateralism and he has openly criticised China and Russia—two of BRICS’ quite influential members. After returning to the White House in January, Trump has started to put more pressure on BRICS nations through economic restrictions and trade war threats.
But the real question isn’t what Trump wants to do. It’s what BRICS will do. Can the bloc respond with a unified political strategy, or will it continue to be little more than an economic collective that carries less than deserved weight on the world stage?
No Coherent Force
Admittedly, so far, BRICS has struggled to project itself as a coherent geopolitical force. Unlike NATO or the G7, BRICS lacks a common security framework, leaving it as an economic heavyweight with no military or diplomatic backbone. It has also failed to act decisively in global crises, making it appear passive rather than proactive.
This is not good enough. Doubling up on de-dollarisation efforts, strengthening the New Development Bank and forming strategic partnerships within the bloc could increase its clout. But it’s certain that without political will, these remain just well-intentioned ambitions.
Many cautious leaders and seasoned diplomats may disagree, but if BRICS wants to be taken seriously, it must step up as a diplomatic power—mediating conflicts, not just challenging Western financial dominance and asserting itself in global governance. Otherwise, it risks becoming little more than an economic bloc with limited influence.
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author